This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority in
accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, based on a stipulation of facts by the parties,
who have agreed that no material issue of fact exists.

The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section
7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by failing and
refusing to provide the Union with the names and home addresses
of bargaining unit employees represented by the Union. For the
reasons stated below, we find that the Respondent committed the
unfair labor practice as alleged.

II. Facts

The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of
employees employed by the Respondent. By memorandum dated
December 6, 1990, the Union requested the Respondent to provide
the Union with the "[n]ames and home mailing addresses of all bargaining unit employees." Stipulation,
Exhibit 1(e). By memorandum dated March 18, 1991 the
Respondent refused to provide the Union with the names and home
addresses of unit employees "based upon Privacy Act
considerations." Stipulation, Exhibit 1(f).

The parties stipulated that the names and home addresses
of bargaining unit employees are normally maintained by the
Respondent in the regular course of business, are reasonably
available, and do not constitute guidance, advice, counsel or
training provided for management officials or supervisors
relating to collective bargaining, within the meaning of
section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. The Respondent

The Respondent disagrees with the Authority's decision in
U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 37 FLRA 515 (1990) (Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard), application for enforcement denied sub nom.FLRA v.
U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, No. 90-1949 (1st Cir. Aug. 13, 1991)
(FLRA v. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard). In that case, we
reaffirmed the Authority's decision in Farmers Home
Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA 788
(1986) (Farmers Home), and concluded that a union is entitled,
under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, to the names and home
addresses of bargaining unit employees. The Respondent asserts
that the Authority should apply the reasoning of the court in
FLRA v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management
Service, 884 F.2d 1446 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.
Ct. 863 (1990), to find that the Respondent was not required to
supply the Union with the requested information.

The Respondent contends that the disclosure of employees'
home addresses is prohibited by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and the Freedom of Information Act, 5
U.S.C. § 552. The
Respondent argues, in this regard, that the requested
information has not been established to be necessary, within
the meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, for the
discharge of the Union's representational responsibilities.

Finally, the Respondent asserts that "[t]he system of
records that will be used to supply the union with the
requested information is a Navy system . . . not an OPM system
. . . ." Respondent's Brief at 1. According to the
Respondent, the "routine use disclosure provisions of the
applicable Navy system of records . . . precludes[] the
disclosure of employee home addresses to unions, especially if
there are alternative means of communications available to the
labor organizations." Id. The Respondent incorporated in, and
attached to, its statement a brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit in Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
wherein the Department of Justice argues that (1) employee home
addresses may not be disclosed from official personnel files
pursuant to the routine use notice published by the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), and (2) the OPM routine use notice
does not apply to "the Department of the Navy's payroll system
of records, which would probably be the most accurate source of
employees' current home addresses." Attachment to Respondent's
Brief at 44 n.38.

B. The General Counsel

The General Counsel contends that this case is controlled
by the Authority's decisions in Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and
Farmers Home. Noting that the Respondent agrees that the
information requested by the Union constitutes data within the
meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, is normally
maintained by the Respondent in the regular course of business,
is reasonably available, and does not constitute guidance,
advice, counsel or training provided for management officials
or supervisors relating to collective bargaining, the General
Counsel asserts that the Respondent's failure and refusal to
provide the names and home addresses of bargaining unit
employees to the Union constitutes a refusal to comply with
section 7114(b)(4) and is an unfair labor practice under
section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

In Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, we reaffirmed Farmers Home
and concluded that the release of the names and home addresses
of bargaining unit employees to their exclusive representatives
is not prohibited by law, is necessary for unions to fulfill
their duties under the Statute, and meets all of the other
requirements established by section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.
We also determined that the release of the information is
generally required without regard to whether alternative means
of communication are available. We find that resolution of
this case does not require consideration of whether alternative
means of communication are available to the Union.

The parties stipulated that the requested information is
normally maintained by the Respondent in the regular course of
business, is reasonably available to the Respondent, and does
not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training provided
for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining. Accordingly,
based on the Authority's decision in Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
we conclude that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute by failing to furnish
the Union with the names and home addresses of unit employees
represented by the Union.

We note that, in FLRA v. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the
Authority's petition for enforcement of Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard. Subsequently, in FLRA v. U.S. Department of the
Navy, Navy Ships Parts Control Center, et al., Nos. 90-3690,
90-3724 (3d Cir. September 13, 1991), a divided Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit denied the Authority's petition
for enforcement of U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Ships
Parts Control Center and Navy Fleet Material Support Office and
NAVSEA Logistics Center and Navy Publishing and Printing
Service, 37 FLRA 722 (1990), in which the Authority relied on
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. We respectfully disagree with these
courts' decisions and adhere to our decision in Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard.

We also note, in this regard, the Respondent's argument
that OPM's routine use notice does not apply to the "system of
records that will be used to supply the union with the
requested information . . . ." Respondent's Brief at 1. The
Respondent does not specify the system of records to which it
refers. Read in light of the Department of Justice brief
attached to, and incorporated in, the Respondent's brief,
however, we construe the Respondent's argument to be that the
requested information would be supplied from the Respondent's
payroll records because official personnel files, which are
subject to the OPM's routine use notice, are not the most
accurate source of current home addresses.

This argument is not relevant to our resolution of this
case. There is no basis on which to conclude that the Union
specifically requested the Respondent to provide the home
addresses from its payroll records or from any other specific
system of records. Moreover, the Respondent does not dispute
that the requested information is available from the OPM system
of records. As such, the possible availability of the
requested information from other agency systems of records has
no bearing on whether the information is properly releasable from the system of records subject to
OPM's routine use notice. SeeU.S. Naval Ordnance Station, 40
FLRA 348, 350-51 (1991), application for enforcement filed sub
nom.FLRA v. U.S. Naval Ordnance Station, No. 91-2519 (4th Cir.
Apr. 24, 1991).

V. Order

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute, the U.S. Department of the
Navy, Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Refusing to furnish, upon request of the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 337, SEIU,
AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of certain of its
employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the
bargaining unit it represents.

(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights assured them by the Statute.

2. Take the following affirmative action in order to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute:

(a) Furnish the International Brotherhood of Police
Officers, Local 337, SEIU, AFL-CIO, the exclusive
representative of certain of its employees, the names and home
addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it
represents.

(b) Post at its facilities where bargaining unit
employees represented by the International Brotherhood of
Police Officers, Local 337, SEIU, AFL-CIO are located, copies
of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal
Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they
shall be signed by the Commander and shall be posted in
conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other
places where notices to employees are customarily posted, and
shall be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

(c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, San
Francisco Regional Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority,
in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order as to
what steps have been taken to comply.

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE

FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE

WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish, upon request of the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 337, SEIU,
AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of certain of our
employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the
bargaining unit it represents.

WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
assured them by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute.

WE WILL furnish the International Brotherhood of Police
Officers, Local 337, SEIU, AFL-CIO, the exclusive
representative of certain of our employees, the names and home
addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it
represents.

(Activity)

Dated: By:

(Signature) (Title)

This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.

If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly
with the Regional Director, San Francisco Regional Office,
Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 901
Market Street, Suite 220, San Francisco, California 94103 and
whose telephone number is: (415) 744-4000.